These statistics demonstrate the extent to which women are
underrepresented within board directors. However, there is no
robust data on the processes that underpin these outcomes.For
example, data is not available on:

The number of board positions that become available each year
- and how many of these are advertised.

The number of women applying for board positions.

The success rate of female applications and how this compares
to that for male applicants.

In addition, data is not available on the numbers of individuals
from other protected characteristics on boards.

Although the strength of the evidence base varies, research into
increasing the diversity on boards (Sealy, Doldor and Vinnicombe,
2009) suggests that the key barriers that underpin the
underrepresentation of women on private sector boards are generally
categorised as:

Individual characteristics - with the arguments commonly made
being that women and other underrepresented groups either do not
aspire to board membership or lack the skills and experience to
gain a board position.However, Sealy
et al. were unable to find any robust evidence to
support these suggesting that they are unfounded.Furthermore,
they highlighted that the narrative around women 'choosing' to
leave corporate life at senior management level that accompanies
these fails to recognise other barriers women face.

Interpersonal characteristics - with women and other
underrepresented groups generally thought to have more limited
social networks and board culture being unable to accommodate
diversity, making it more difficult for women and other
underrepresented groups to integrate.

The recruitment and appointment process - with a lack of
awareness of available directorships, limited links between
search agencies and underrepresented groups, a lack of diversity
on nomination committees, unclear selection criteria, unconscious
bias and the language and framing of directorships all acting as
barriers to women and other underrepresented groups gaining board
positions.

In this chapter, we will examine the barriers faced by the
companies taking part in the e-survey and case studies to improving
gender balance and broader diversity of their boards - and how they
impact on attempts to improve gender balance and broader diversity
of private sector boards.

The e-survey provides a useful starting point for the
consideration of the barriers identified in the field work. The
e-survey asked companies to identify barriers to achieving gender
balance and greater diversity.

Figure 3: Main Barriers to Achieving Gender Balance on
Boards (% of Companies)

All companies

Female account for less than 40% of board

Female account for 40%+ of board

No. of female board members increased in last 5
years

Low turnover of board members

42

56

15

32

Lack of female candidates for board positions

34

40

23

42

No barriers to achieving gender parity

32

24

46

37

Receive female applicants for board positions - but do
not have the industry-specific skills or experience we
require

16

16

15

32

Other

13

12

15

11

Concerns that targeting females would be in breach of
legislation

5

8

5

Don't know

5

4

8

5

Receive female applicants for board positions - but do
not have previous board experience

3

4

-

5

Don't know where to get help to tackle this issue

3

-

8

-

Can conflict with other organisational
priorities/objectives

-

-

-

-

N

38

25

13

19

Source:
TERU
E-survey (2015)

38 companies identified barriers:

The most frequently cited barrier (by 42% of companies) is
the low turnover of board members.This is not gender specific,
but impacts on all board recruitment and limits the number of
opportunities available.Companies where females account for less
than 40% of the board were much more likely to identify this as
the main barrier than those with a more equal gender balance (56%
compared to just 15%).

The next most commonly cited was a lack of female candidates
coming forward for board positions (by 34% of companies).Again,
companies where females account for less than 40% of the board
were more likely to identify this as the main barrier than those
with more equal gender balance (40% vs. 23%).Interestingly,
companies that had increased the number of female board members
in the last 5 years were slightly more likely than all companies
to identify this as a barrier.

32% of companies felt there were no barriers to achieving
gender equality.A higher proportion of those companies with
boards that are at least 40% female felt there were no barriers
than those with fewer women (46% compared to 24%).

Only a small proportion of companies said that female
applicants lack the necessary skills and or experience they
require (with 16% saying females lack the industry-specific
skills or experience needed and 3% saying female candidates lack
board experience).

Concerns that targeting females would be in breach of
legislation and a lack of knowledge about where to get help to
address this issue were only highlighted by a small proportion of
companies.

A small number of respondents suggested other issues.These
included:

Achieving board gender parity is not a key focus - with other
issues taking priority.

Boards with odd numbers of board members will never be
equally balanced.

The company is keen to achieve a diverse board but focusing
on achieving diversity in other characteristics (such as
different nationalities, knowledge, experience, etc.) rather than
gender.

We will now consider each of these barriers in more detail,
drawing on the stakeholder and case study interviews as well as the
wider literature.

Low Turnover

As highlighted above, the issue of low turnover is not gender
specific but clearly has an impact on the potential to change the
composition of boards and this could limit companies being more
proactive about making their boards more diverse.A number of case
study companies also identified that low turnover was a significant
barrier - especially amongst those that were small, family-owned
businesses.The case below is an example of this situation.

Case Study Examples: Low Turnover as a Barrier

Case Study E's board is unlikely to increase substantially
in the future or change in terms of gender balance as it is a
family owned firm and so achieving gender balance at board level is
not seen as an important issue within the company. However, it is
important that all employees are treated equally and they have an
equal opportunities policy in place to ensure this happens. For
example, the Equal Opportunities Policy states that the company is
'committed to a policy of treating all our employees and job
applicants equally.' They do not support positive discrimination
and would never make a promotion or recruitment decision based
purely on gender or other characteristics; it is more important
they find the right person for the job.The Equal Opportunities
Policy states that 'we will appoint, train, develop and promote on
the basis of merit and ability alone'.

Lack of Female Candidates

The next most common barrier identified in the survey is a lack
of female candidates for board positions. This study has found that
there are a range of reasons why women do not put themselves
forward for board positions - and these confirm many of the
findings of previous research undertake at the
UK level or
internationally.

Differences in Aspiration

The evidence from the literature is mixed in terms of whether
there are differences in aspiration across genders.For example:

As outlined earlier, research by Sealy
et al. (2009) was unable to find any robust evidence to
support the argument that women are less aspirational.

Research by Rosati and Bailey (2014) into the talent pipeline
surveyed over 600 business directors and senior executives across
several countries.Only 5% felt that the low number of female
applications and/or a lack of desire for taking up board
positions was the main reason for women being underrepresented on
boards.

Research into board membership (Brown, Kelan and Humbert,
2015) found that:

Men are more likely to consider a wider range of boards than
women seeking non-executive directorships with 58% considering
private company boards compared to 49% of women, 53% considering
public limited company boards outside of the
FTSE
compared to 40% of women, and 14% considering angel investment in
small companies compared to 5% of women.

Whilst women are more likely to aspire to a non-executive
directorship on a
FTSE100
company (31% versus just 14% men), men were more likely to
identify the power and/or status they might gain from the role
and highlighted their desire to be Chair (46% versus 28%).

As well as there being some debate about whether women have
different aspirations, there is also a body of research that seeks
to explore what might underpin different aspirations.In a recent
study,
KPMG,
YSC and 30% Club (2014) found that men and women have more
similarities than differences but "
the marginal differences appear to predict markedly dissimilar
career outcomes for men and for women". In particular they
found that:

Women's ambition overtakes that of men as they reach more
senior roles.For both men and women the factors that they
considered more important to their sense of success were having
positive working relationships and doing something intrinsically
interesting.

Women at senior levels (one and two levels below Executive
Committee) are two times less likely to be internally promoted
than men - but four times less likely to leave than men.At
Executive Committee level, women were much more likely than men
(25% vs. 12%) to leave because they had become disengaged with
the company culture.This suggests that women have aspirations -
but that culture and systems make board-level positions less
attractive.

Some stakeholders felt that there is a perception that women do
not have aspirations to become board members - although in line
with the literature they had mixed views about whether or not this
was an accurate perception and that the reasons why women tended to
be less likely to aspire to a board position were not clear. Lack
of female aspirations to go onto a board was also highlighted by
some interviewees from the case study companies (speaking either on
behalf of their company or from their individual perspective).As
with stakeholders, it should be noted this is just one of barriers
noted.

Interviews with potential board members from the case study
companies (shown in the box below) suggest that some of the women
interviewed are not considering boards not because they lack
confidence or aspiration but because they have family/other caring
commitments and could not put in the additional hours they
perceived board membership would require. This would tend to
support the views of stakeholders that there are differences in
what people want out of life and currently more women prioritise
life outside work. These perspectives are highlighted in the box
below. To protect the identity of the interviewees we have not
organised these findings by case study.

Examples from Interviews with Existing and Potential Board
Members: Different Aspirations as a Barrier

One interviewee had been interested in being a board member
earlier in her career but now did not think it was realistic
because she has caring responsibilities and these have changed her
priorities as well as limited the time she feels she would need to
devote to being a board member. She perceives that board members
have to work long hours and she is not able to work more than full
time hours. She does not believe that she faces other barriers as
she feels she has the skills and abilities to be a board
member.

Another interviewee is in a senior position in her company.
She is not thinking about a board position at the moment because
she is at an early stage in her career, but did think that it was
something that she might potentially consider
'further down the line'. She feels the main obstacles to
achieving this included how she might be able to balance the
demanding role of a board member with family life.

On the other hand, an interviewee did not see that having
commitments for caring for children should act as a barrier to
board membership in the longer term. This indicates that it may be
important to provide opportunities for women to increase their
hours after they have raised their children.This interviewee is in
a senior position in her company. She is interested in becoming a
board member because she is ambitious and also sees herself working
for at least another thirty years. At the moment she has a dual
focus on her family and career and is working part time.However, as
her children grow she feels she will have a stronger focus on her
career again and will increase her hours. She feels she has the
skills and abilities that would be valued on a board including her
knowledge, conflict resolution and human relations. She does not
feel that she faces any barriers due to gender, especially in her
own company as there is a female
MD. Indeed the company
is '
led by strong successful women'.

These perspectives are also identified in the literature which
shows that women often leave corporate life at a middle management
level for a range of reasons that include (Rosati and Bailey,
2013):

Family responsibilities including limited flexibility and the
cost of childcare.

No desire to engage in workplace politics.

Other external commitments that require their time.

No desire to combine work pressure with home life.

Lack of appeal of corporate life.

In terms of tackling these issues, the main suggestions given
were:

Enabling flexible working.

Improving culture in workplace.

More transparent recruitment processes.

Women were much more likely than men to see 'unconscious bias'
training as a key initiative that could reduce the levels of
attrition of females from middle to senior management (25 %
compared to 5%).

Male-Dominated Culture

Linked to the above is the perception of the existence of a
male-dominated corporate culture. In one study highlighted in the
literature this was the most frequently cited reason to explain why
women are under-represented at board level (recognised by 25% of
women and 22% of men (Rosati and Bailey, 2013).

Stakeholders perceived that cultures of organisations can be
male-dominated. It is difficult in such a context to get board
members to make a cultural shift and take the issue of increasing
diversity on board.Additionally, some stakeholders felt men in
male-dominated boards have a vested interest in maintaining the
imbalance. As one stakeholder commented although there is a need to
aim for wider diversity on boards having a balance of males and
females is a good starting point. If companies lack gender
diversity this is likely to reflect deeper cultural issues in the
company concerning diversity in general.Stakeholders also thought
that in male-dominated boards it is likely that females on boards
will have very similar backgrounds to the men they sit with and
will be unlikely to think that differently from the male board
members.'
Lots of companies 'tick boxes' but we can't just have someone
conditioned to a male dominated environment.'

A small number of people interviewed for the case studies
identified that the continued male dominance of boards could act as
a barrier to women and prevent them putting themselves forward for
board positions. For example one interviewee felt that despite some
progress, boards continue to be male dominated and would prefer to
recruit other males although she pointed out '
this is my perception, it might not be reality'.Two other
interviewees' views on this issue are highlighted in the box
below.

Examples from Interviews with Existing and Potential Board
Members: Male-Dominated Culture as a Barrier

A female board member interviewed had applied for board
positions in the past but felt her young age, lack of experience in
the private sector (she had been on the board of a couple of
charities) and to an extent
'the old school tie network' prevented her being
recruited. This was frustrating. There appeared to be
'no buy-in to diversity at the top level' and in some
cases the
'board was seen as a social club with resistance to opening it
wider'.

An interviewee was in her second job since leaving
university.Although she felt she would like to progress to higher
levels of management and saw opportunities for progression within
the company, she was unsure whether she wanted to become a board
member at some point in the future. The main reason for this was
that she enjoyed an operational role and she saw board members as
being remote from this. Another reason was that her perception of
boardrooms was that they were
'rooms full of men'. She had not had any experience of
meeting female board members. At university, all guest speakers at
her course had been male, despite the fact that the majority of
students on the course were female.As a result being on a board did
not appeal to her as she felt they would be male
dominated.

If boards are dominated by one group this can limit the networks
they use to recruit so they tend to recruit people who have their
own characteristics and this can become self perpetuating (referred
to as "
hiring in ones' own image" in Sealy
et al., 2009).

Limited Networks

The literature including Sealy
et al. (2009) and Rosati and Bailey (2014)identifies that
success in securing a role often relates to the scope of an
individuals' network. Women typically have smaller networks than
their male counterparts so this may hamper their chances of being
aware of and/or securing a board position. Stakeholders agreed that
women have more limited networks than males and therefore do not
have access to support. There needs to be more emphasis on building
social capital so that women have these links.

Another issue is a lack of awareness of the roles on offer in
boards coupled with unclear selection procedures which can serve as
a major obstacle to appointment (Sealy
et al., 2009).This was also an issue raised in the case
study interviews, with several of the interviewees with potential
to be board members not sure about where to find board vacancies,
or the processes involved in appointing board members. Some said
they felt they would need support to identify vacancies and how to
apply.

Lack of Skills and/or Experience

The next most common barrier identified in the e-survey is that
women lack the necessary skills and/or experience needed for board
membership. This was also raised as an issue in the case studies.
This was often the main difference between male and female
candidates for board positions.

Case Study Examples: Lack of Skills and/or Experience as a
Barrier

Case Study A identifies the main barrier is the lack of
female candidates for board positions. Furthermore if they receive
applications, candidates do not have the industry specific
experience they are looking for. The company believes a more
proactive approach is needed both internally and across the sector
industry (banking) to help women attain and sustain executive
positions so they can develop the necessary experience and to
encourage them to seek board positions, especially non-executive
positions. Proactive approaches they have implemented or are
considering include commitment from the board to seeking diversity
and producing a board diversity policy and taking steps to reach
potential female applicants through targeted
recruitment.

Case Study H also identifies finding female potential
board members as the main barrier to achieving gender balance. This
is a problem across their industrial sector (food manufacturing) as
there are generally fewer females in management and board
positions. Within the industry, there is a need to encourage more
women to think about aspiring to boards and to think about this
earlier in their careers. In their experience, women are less
likely to put themselves forward for board positions as they are
more likely to question their ability to do the job compared to
males. They need encouragement to consider going for a board
position. They have tried to recruit more female board members in
the last 5 years but despite a lengthy process to try to find
female candidates, involving the use of executive search agencies
they have had few coming forward and male candidates have generally
had more skills and experience. They would like to see more female
candidates applying for board positions, but feel that this may
mean they do not get the skills and breadth of experience they need
for their board. The issue is a circular one: having more women on
the board could enhance their reputation in the recruitment market
place which might in turn attract more women looking for a
management position as they would see that there is a possibility
for promotion.

The issue of what kinds of skills and experience boards are
looking for is important. While the case study companies recognised
that women could bring new skills and ways of working to boards
(around team building, problem solving, ability to look at issues
from different perspectives etc.), very few were actively looking
for these skills on their board. The literature suggest that a
desire to maintain the status quo remains a barrier, particularly
for male dominated boards that simply do not recognise the need for
change and tend to replace like for like (Rosati and Bailey,
2013).

A number of stakeholders also commented that some companies are
willing to look beyond a narrow person specification for board
members. For example, one commented that when they say they are
looking '
for the right person for the job they are looking at that
through a very traditional lens' and do not understand that '
good comes in many forms' and broaden their definition of
this. This can be self-perpetuating as women and people from other
groups may not want to go on to a board where people like them are
in the minority, perceiving this could affect the likelihood of
them being able to make a contribution to the board.This reinforces
many of the findings from previous studies including Sealy
et al. (2009).Boards like this may not have many people
from protected characteristics applying for positions but may not
ask themselves why. Such boards may also not seek to change the way
their boards operate to accommodate diversity. The working patterns
demanded alongside board membership can be difficult for women to
meet. According to the stakeholders this means there is a link
between the number of female candidates coming forward for board
positions and the barrier related to female applicants lacking the
necessary skills and or experience required for board
membership.

Workplace constraints can mean people in protected groups face
discrimination in the workplace and find it hard to progress into
senior positions and then boards.The Davies Report (2014)
identified these as including, unconscious bias, organisational
culture and approaches to performance management. Other workplace
constraints identified in the literature include gender biased
recruitment (potentially unconscious) and challenges in making
progress on returning following a career break (Rosati and Bailey,
2013). There continue to be barriers preventing women getting into
senior management positions and then building their experience so
that they are in a better position to be successful in applications
for board positions.

No Barriers?

12 companies in the e-survey stated there were no barriers to
achieving gender equality on boards within their company.
Similarly, some of the case study companies also felt there were no
barriers. This did not mean they felt there were no barriers for
particular groups within society but rather that they felt there
were none
within their company. This was because:

People are appointed purely on basis of skills and expertise
- although as highlighted in other literature this fails to
recognise that there may be wider barriers that lead to women not
developing the skills or expertise being sought.

The company was determined to support gender equality and
diversity.

Examples of these two different company perspectives are
highlighted in the box below.

Case Study Examples: No Barriers

Case Study B sees equality and diversity as very important
to the company. The owner is female and wants to lead by example.
If the company grows and they increase the size of their board they
will aim for gender parity to achieve this balanced perspective.
They are very committed to achieving this and believe there are no
barriers as they have put a number of policies and practices in
place to ensure this happens.These include the development of an
equalities and diversity policy, becoming an Investors in People
employer, signing up to Partnership For Change, ensuring informal
practices do not perpetuate gender imbalance, changing the gender
profile of the business so that there are more women in senior
management and introducing flexible working.

Case Study C feels there are no barriers to progression
onto their board for females as long as they have the right skills
and attitudes to attain a board position. If they have these skills
and abilities they will be supported along a pathway to becoming a
partner.However, the company has found it difficult to find females
who are willing to take advantage of these opportunities. In their
experience some female employees can have different priorities and
this usually involves greater commitment to family life, which can
interfere with the full time commitment to the firm needed to
become a board member, which has always been expected of potential
board members in the company. There is a
'reasonable expectation that as a female employed here that you
have to have commitment to the firm and can't [take time off
work or work part-time to]
bring up children as you like - but this applies to everyone
that wants to go on to the board'.The main challenge for the
firm in terms of increasing female board members is the small
number of women within the company who are willing to make this
commitment.

Key Messages

1.The literature suggests the
main barriers to improving the gender balance and broader diversity of
private sector boards can be categorised as:

Individual characteristics including different aspirations
about board membership and a lack of relevant skills and
experience.However, there is mixed evidence in relation to this -
and many researchers criticise this perspective as it places the
emphasis on women rather than on changing the broader
organisational and cultural issues that influence women's
decisions.

Interpersonal characteristics including more limited social
networks and board culture being unable to accommodate diversity
- making it difficult for women and other underrepresented groups
to integrate.

Appointment and recruitment processes with, for example, a
lack of diversity on nomination committees, unclear selection
criteria, unconscious bias and the language and framing of
directorships all acting as barriers to women and other
underrepresented groups gaining board positions.

2.However, the findings of the e-survey show quite a different
picture:

The most common barrier to achieving gender balance on their
board highlighted was the low turnover of board membership -
reflecting the fact that most companies completing the survey
were small and medium-sized enterprises (
SMEs) and
many were family-owned companies (whereas most earlier research
has focused on larger, listed companies).

Just under a third of companies felt that there were no
barriers to improving the gender balance of their boards.Boards
that were more equal were more likely to think this was the
case.

Where companies did identify a barrier that specifically
related to gender, the most commonly mentioned were a lack of
female candidates coming forward for board positions and that
female candidates lack the industry-specific skills and
experience required.

3.The case studies and stakeholder interviews provide further
insights into these barriers:

The lack of female candidates is thought to reflect
differences in aspirations across genders (with many of the
'potential board members' interviewed for this research feeling
that board positions were not for them), perceptions that boards
are a 'male-dominated culture' where they may not fit in and more
limited social networks amongst women.

The major factors underpinning the lack of skills and
experience amongst female candidates are the lack of women in
senior management roles and time out of the labour market due to
caring responsibilities which limits the volume of experience
women have accrued compared to men.A further consideration is the
type of skills and experience companies are looking for - with
some consultees raising concerns that these are too narrow.The
concern here is that there is unconscious bias amongst the often
cited focus on getting 'the right person for the job'.

4.One of the most notable findings is that many of the companies
that participated in the research felt that there were no barriers
to improving the gender balance of their board - but the low
proportion of boards with gender parity and the evidence from other
literature suggest that at a broader societal level there are
barriers. In addition, many of barriers that were identified
related to the choices women make in the labour market (for
example, around career choice, whether to remain in work after
having children, etc.).It is important to recognise that these are
influenced by wider organisational, structural and cultural
barriers and unless there is wider recognition of these (and action
to address them) it will be difficult to make sustainable inroads
into tackling this issue.